Review Pet. Nos.561, 567/14, 8/2015, 560, 566/14 & 9/15

Page 1

$~S-1&2

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

DECIDED ON: 22.05.2015

+

REVIEW PET.561/2014, 567/2014, 8/2015 IN W.P. (C) 7370/2010

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

..... Petitioners

versus

SUDHANSHU KUMAR KHARE & ORS

..... Respondents

REVIEW PET.560/2014, 566/2014, 9/2015, C.M. Nos.20614,

20830/2014 IN W.P. (C) 7371/2010

BHUPINDER KUMAR & ORS.

..... Petitioners

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Respondents

Appearance: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, CGSC with Mr. Vikram Jetely, Mr.

Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Ms. Kritika and Ms. Astha, Advocates for

UOI.

Mr. Tarun Sharma with Ms. Boudh Prabha, Advocates for petitioners

in W.P.(C)7371/2010 and for respondent nos.14,33,41, 47, 73 & 84 in

W.P. (C)7370/2010.

Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Supriya Juneja and Mr.

Viraj Gandhi, Advocates for review petitioner in Review

Pet.560-561/2014.

Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhary and Ms. Aditi

Gupta, Advocates for UPSC.

Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Khare, Review petitioner in person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)

Review Pet. Nos.561, 567/14, 8/2015, 560, 566/14 & 9/15

Page 2

1.

Heard counsel for the parties with consent.

2. The petitioner seeks review of the judgment of this Court

pronounced on 17.11.2014 in W.P.(C)7370/2010 preferred by the

Union of India and other connected matters, i.e., W.P.(C)7371/2010

& CM Nos.8140 & 8169/2014 filed therein. The writ petition had

impugned the correctness of the view expressed by the Principal

Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (“C.A.T.”) in OA

1281/2000 dated 1.7.2010. The question which engaged the

attention of the C.A.T. and later this Court was the inter se seniority

of promotees and direct recruits in the Central Bureau of Investigation

(“C.B.I.”). For this purpose, the C.A.T. - as well as this Court had to

examine the Special Police Establishment (Executive Staff)

Recruitment Rules, 1963 and certain other rules made and brought

into force from time to time including the Special Police

Establishment

(Executive

Staff)

Amendment

Rules,

1972; amendments made on 31.03.1987 and the amendments made in 1997.

The CAT had rendered findings accepting the direct recruits‟

contentions that in the absence of any power to relax, the placement

of the direct recruits en bloc junior to the promotees and the filling up

of posts created without applying the quota rota rule was

unsupportable in law. The promotees and Union of India had,

therefore, approached this Court in the two writ petition.

3. The CBI had published a seniority list of Deputy

Superintendent of Police (DSPs) on 6.8.1999 as on 1.1.1999. This

was impugned by the direct recruits who had joined the cadre

sometime between 1996 & 1998, as against 20% quota. The Rules

Review Pet. Nos.561, 567/14, 8/2015, 560, 566/14 & 9/15

Page 3

of 1987 required the cadre of DSPs to be filled inter alia in the ratio

of 50% by transfer, 30% by promotion and 20% by direct recruitment.

The grievance of the direct recruit DSPs was that promotions had

been made without nexus to the quota prescribed. As part of this

submission, the direct recruits had contended that the creation of

several posts and their diversion for the purposes of filling through

promotion was contrary to rules. It was also argued by the direct

recruits that in the absence of any express power to relax the

conditions prescribed by the rule making authority (unlike in the 1996

Rules which contains such prescription), the Union of India was

powerless and had to follow the dictat of the rules. In other words, it

was the positive case of the direct recruits that the Union could not

have deviated from the Rules in the rigid application of quota rota

rules for determining seniority. The CAT initially rejected the direct

recruits‟ application but was